StrAIT Blogging

Archive for the ‘Methodology’ Category

In my last post I addressed our decision to use DSDM Atern for the projects generated by an SLR engagement. Now comes the decision on what I call the “engagement architecture”. What this phrase means is what are the tools we will use and how will we use them to actually execute projects. No one tool does everything needed to execute projects in an environment of empowered, collaborative teams executing an iterative methodology. Trust me, I’ve extensively looked for the “silver bullet” application that does it all and could only find several lead bullets and a couple of bronze ones.

We need to remember that we’re also talking about doing projects as consultants working with both our resources and the client’s. That means that the chosen approach must have negligible impact to the client’s IT infrastructure and not commit the client to additional long term recurring costs. When we leave the engagement, we must be able to fold up our tent and take our working environment with us. That certainly isn’t always true but our planning must be based on the most conservative scenarios. The only materials that must be left behind are sufficient documents to support SOX requirements and audits. For any client, the answer is one of three modes.

Mode 1 (primary)

The primary collaborative environment is Microsoft Groove 2007 (soon to be Microsoft SharePoint Workspace 2010). In this mode the client provides a copy of Groove to each team member. Groove functions primarily in a peer to peer architecture but has a server-based architecture available when/if needed. For small teams peer to peer is appropriate and convenient. That approach can definitely scale to larger sizes but at some point a server option may be more appropriate. I know many readers will start to groan at the mention of peer to peer. I have discussed the value of this approach before. A link to that post is here. It fulfills the requirement of leaving no lasting footprint on the client’s IT infrastructure (only user PCs), does not inflict a recurring cost on their business (there is a minimal onetime cost) and definitely provides a flexible collaborative environment for the project team. I will not elaborate on how Groove is used because I don’t want this post to turn into a pitch (it’s already more pitchy than I would like).

The brainstorming and creative component uses MindManager from Mindjet. I have found it to be very useful and its integration to Microsoft’s Office Suite is very beneficial. The use of the Microsoft Office Suite (Word, Excel, PowerPoint, etc.) is assumed. For project schedule management we use the venerable Microsoft Project tool. For the methodology and document control we use Project in a box. We use the client’s storage/portal for archiving project information or we can archive it on our own SharePoint server. The use of all of these tools can be adjusted based on the client’s preferences or the client can just use our default engagement architecture.

Mode 2 (cloud)

Here the primary collaborative environment is one of several cloud-based project management tools. There is a wide assortment of them available and we have a few preferences. But the client’s preferences are what count so we’ll review the options with them and go from there. The reason this is not our primary approach is that I’m not satisfied that all the security “rude surprises” are all know yet for that approach (see this link) and it can inflict a recurring cost on the client. However, it’s all the rage now, very popular and growing. It will mature in time to address all of my concerns. We acknowledge that and will be happy to not fuss too much with the client about it if that’s what they want. The bottom line is that it can work for this requirement.

Mode 3 (whatever)

This is simply the case when the client is a larger, more IT-mature organization and wants to do it their way. If this is their preference we say “yes, sir”, salute and do it their way. This is true of any consultant in the world. We will do the best to adapt the core parts of our approach to that environment to assure of project success. We won’t let the client shoot themselves in the foot (or at least not contribute to it) but we will be adaptable.

In conclusion

We’ve covered a number of tools at a very high level. Each of you has to find the combination that works for you. I believe these approaches work for us and our clients to deliver professional and successful results for each project. If anyone from the DSDM Consortium reads this please harass the Project in a box people to expand their tool from just a document repository to include some of the functionality described above. If anyone from Project in a box reads this please consider yourself harassed.

Thanks for stopping by. See you next time…

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

All business process related projects require some form of team to execute the work. Even for small companies with very informal and centralized leadership, BPI teams exist. They may not be formal but to improve their business processes they need a diverse skills inventory to look at the challenge from multiple points of view. The structure of those teams is extremely important. Insuring the appropriate mix of skills needs to be carefully managed by the company’s leadership to include the perspectives of business operations, information technology, staff functions and external stakeholders. Those external stakeholders may not participate the same way or to the same extent but the needs of customers, vendors and supply chain partners need to be included.

Historically, many business process improvement (BPI) projects fail to sustain their initial gains over the long term. Typically, this happens when the key resources needed to sustain your BPI benefits are overwhelmed by the crush of daily, urgent tasks. Over time, the automated part of the business practices may stay in place but the behavior of the people changes. To address this StrAIT Advisors recommends:

• Create a collaborative environment
  

Create a site on your company’s network (portal or something similar) where team members can collaborate, collect new ideas and monitor BPI success. Examples of useful tools are Microsoft SharePoint, Microsoft Groove, IBM (Lotus) Notes/Domino and Oracle Beehive.

• Project team becomes a business process competency center
  

Keep your team focused, even after the project is over. Put some level of accountability in their performance plans to spend a portion of their time managing and collaborating on your business processes from a companywide perspective. Remember it is possible to optimize individual departments but sub-optimize the company as a whole.

• Team leader is on the COO succession plan
  

This is often overlooked. Your business processes are the lifeblood of your company. The Chief Operating Officer (COO) or equivalent has the primary responsibility for making sure all the wheels keep turning smoothly. The person responsible for your company’s business process “think tank” will gain a wider perspective on how your business works, reinforcing the experiences that put them on that succession plan in the first place.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

——————-

Update: 9/15/09

Just in:  Hard data on the use of social media by executives.  Get the study here.  You can also download the document on our Files page.

My thanks to Suzanne Adnams.  Her profile is here.  See her blog here.  She has been the most helpful contributor to my research.

——————-

I recently posted the same question to a number of LinkedIn Groups as I have already posted here in my own blog. See “Using Social Media to Communicate with Executives“. There have been few responses to my question. However, I have received a few responses. I also received feedback during networking events that I found useful. I just responded to a recent reply and wanted to share it here. It has helped me to clarify my strategy and may be useful for you as well.

Recently, I was at an American Marketing Association luncheon were I talked with a young lady with firsthand experience. Her firm studies and advises clients on the topic. Based on what she and others have told me I now have a working model to use in my business. I segment my marketplace into two distinct groups. The first group is manufacturing and manufacturing related service companies (my primary market). The other group is composed of service companies not directly connected to manufacturing, like marketing, sales, technology services, etc (my secondary market). For the primary group LinkedIn is the most used tool, Facebook is occasionally used and Twitter isn’t a player. Even LinkedIn is used only in a fairly passive way. My secondary market is somewhat more active in social networking because there is a higher percentage of younger leadership.

Consequently, my strategy is simple. For me social networking tools can be somewhat useful as marketing tools but not as communication tools during engagements. In an era where senior executives have email enabled phones, plain old email is still the best choice for project related communications. Social media will be reserved for marketing related activities. I am already using collaborative technologies for engagements so there is nothing to change in that area.

Actually, this strategy is a confirmation of what I already believed. I just wanted to gather enough information to be more objective than just my “gut”. However, if I get a landslide of responses tomorrow to the contrary I do reserve the right to rethink my strategy. Given the level of responses so far I don’t anticipate any landslides.

For context the forum response is shown below:

“Mike – you raise a very interesting question, and I suspect from the lack of responses to date that there aren’t any clear answers to your dilemma, and that others may be posing the same question for the same reasons. I don’t have a clear answer to your question, but I do have some observations.

Fundamentally, there may be a disconnect between the role and function or ‘social’ technologies versus the type of service that it enables. To me, the disconnect is aptly illustrated by the confusing use of the terms ‘social media’ and ‘social networking’ – which I believe to be two different, but related concepts.
We can see the challenge through attempts that many companies have had to introduce collaboration software (eg. Sharepoint) into their environments – even though everyone thinks its a good idea, getting everyone to use it is another matter! If organizations have this level of difficulty getting participation within a relatively controlled workgroup (ie. employees), I don’t think there’s much chance of achieving compliance with a group of independent, external clients.

If you want to use this type of communication within your business, you may want to pursue ‘social media’, which in my definition is focused on promoting, marketing and branding your business/services to constituents. As these technologies mature, and become more pervasive in their use within business, then gradually there will be more uptake at a senior level. For now, though, the ‘closed’ two-way communication that would be appropriate for executive clients relating to specific work does not fit into the ‘open’, one-way communications that is typical of social networking and social media interactions.”

Your question would fall into what I would define as the ‘social networking’ category. If I may paraphrase: How can you use new forms of communications provided by social networking services such as Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn etc. as part of your communications strategy and plan with executive sponsors? The answer, as simplistic as it sounds, is that these channels are simply extensions of any normal communications plan, and need to be considered in the same light. If the constituency with whom you are dealing uses these services, then there may be an opportunity to integrate those into your communications, but that’s a big IF. For the most part, most business-focused activity will take place via professional-level services such as LinkedIn, with Twitter or Facebook perceived as primarily personal/recreational services. None of these, however, are designed for the type of business communications that you are considering. Although it would be possible to create a FB page or a LinkedIn group specific to a given project, and limit access to that information to only approved members, it is much more challenging to get executives to change their habits to use it.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

The folks at Appian recently released a copy of a research note from Gartner, Inc. I have included a copy of it in the Files section of this blog. The key findings are listed below.

Key Findings

• Companies that use BPM create business process models that identify process redundancies, hidden costs and avoidable risks. Companies survive by using cost savings from BPM efforts to fund critical business operations.
• Applying BPM enables process visibility, allowing better collaboration among the activities being performed.
• For struggling companies, compliance is often another burden. BPM is well-suited to drive costs out of compliance and regulatory work.
• Simplifying the administrative work of your employees can increase morale and enable them to spend time on high-value work. It can also help companies in survival mode do more with less.

Recommendations

• Gain a competency in BPM now.
• Before you wield the cost-cutting axe, construct a high-level business process model to understand the impact of head count and resource cuts across the enterprise so that you do not decrease process efficiency and inadvertently drive up costs.
• Use BPM to manage your business case justification and measurement processes.
• Identify processes where costs may be high and there is not a focus on measurement. Target one of these processes for your first or next BPM project, and demonstrate tangible results.
   

Survival Actions

Put BPM to work immediately: 

• Identify your most-valuable business processes.
  
• Select from that set the business processes necessary for survival and where money may be wasted.
  
• Target one of these processes for your first or next BPM project. 

BPM can be a powerful tool that plays a critical role in the survival of your company — it can reduce costs, ensure compliance, avoid mistakes and create the visibility needed to manage processes as assets to your enterprise. Initial projects can produce impressive results. You cannot, however, simply focus on one-off projects. You will need to assess the impact of cuts to the process overall, not just isolation in one area. To scale and integrate BPM into the fabric of your organization requires attending to the discipline of BPM and putting the constructs in place to support the practice of BPM. Although much of the survival work will focus on projects that generate significant results, resources must also be allocated to communicating and making BPM repeatable and scalable. For step-by-step information about building an effective BPM program. 

When building a BPM program, be sure to pay attention to some critical elements: 

1. Build communication into your BPM work to address the cultural and political implications that will arise.
   
2. Start up the business process competency center to ensure that your efforts will scale.
   
3. Prove the results by doing several short-duration, high-impact projects.
   
4. Educate your organization about BPM — build the skill set, and strive to embed continuous process improvement into everyone’s job. 

Laying the groundwork for BPM and proving results are powerful and can become a platform to elevate BPM to its true potential — BPM as one of the strategic management disciplines — and enable your organization to move from using BPM to survive to helping your organization to thrive. 

StrAIT Advisors recommendations 

This research note includes some specific savings example, which is always helpful and should be valuable to you as well. I recommend that you take these observations and recommendations seriously. For those of us that have been around a while, we remember recessions past. As usual, there were many jobs lost. And as usual, as the economy recovered many companies found their experience inventory in core areas had been depleted. This lack of experience where it was needed most seriously hurt those companies. It took them years to recover. 

Download a copy of this research note and share it within your organization. It’s clear, direct and important.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

MOF alignment diagram

IT infrastructure, applications and data storage have become inseparable from the implementation of business process for any modern business, regardless of size.  Any company that wishes to improve their business processes must work with whoever supports their IT infrastructure very closely.  As a result, there has been an increasing emphasis in the IT world to be more responsive to their customers.  Several “frameworks” have emerged in recent years to help IT organizations do just that.  A framework is a set of policies and business practices that forms the basis for the business processes of the IT organization.  These standard frameworks can then be extended or modified to suit the needs of each specific company.  Collectively these frameworks are referred to as the field of IT service management, or ITSM.

 While our SLR^SM methodology is not an IT framework it needs to accommodate the client’s IT organization and any ITSM framework or business practices it is using.  To accomplish several ITSM frameworks were reviewed as to how they would interact with our methodology.  They were COBIT 4.1, Val IT, ISO 20000, ITIL version 3 and the Microsoft Operations Framework version 4.  We will be writing a white paper providing a comparison of these frameworks from a pragmatic, mid-size manufacturer’s perspective sometime in the future.  For this post we will limit our perspective how the SLR^SM methodology should map to them.

Cobit alignment diagram

 The most obvious touch point is the alignment of IT and business requirements.  That alignment is core to all of the frameworks.  We have included several examples of diagrams shown in documents provided as part of each framework.  In each framework, business alignment and collaboration are emphasized repeatedly as foundational elements.  This illustrates that the IT world has become much more sensitive to their customers in recent years.  That wasn’t always the case.  For years, IT organizations isolated themselves from their customers.  While CIOs and senior IT management were certainly sensitive to their business counterparts, the IT organizations as a whole did not have a culture which focused everyone on their customers.  I remember first hand a number of resignations which occurred after I asked some developers to spend more time with their customers and understand their business issues (not StrAIT Advisors and a long time ago).  Some of these islands of isolation still exist.  Unfortunately, that will probably be true for some time to come.

 So how does the SLR^SM methodology address this alignment issue?  The keys are in the team formation and the phase reviews.  First, the team must be formed to include both manufacturing and IT staff.  The simulator and collaborative tools used to execute the project force a structured approach to identifying and quantifying opportunities for business process waste reduction.  The phase review process forces that team to articulate details about the identified opportunities and how to address them to the senior management sponsors of the project.

ITIL alignment diagram

 As the SLR^SM methodology winds down and the “torch” is passed to the client’s continuous improvement team (which should be most of the same people) that alignment is also continued.   As a result, the alignment of IT to the client’s core business issues becomes a greater, ongoing part of the company’s culture.  It’s important to remember that the client’s continuous improvement process includes both business groups and IT groups, each using the appropriate business processes.  For example, the business operations group may find that a Six Sigma DMAIC methodology is best suited for them and the IT groups may find that business process built around ITIL works best for them.  Both of those approaches require communication and collaboration with the other.

 The relationship and collaboration between IT and the client’s core business groups is a key requirement for any project to be successful regardless of what project methodology is used.  It’s our intent to encourage and enable that aspect of our client’s culture.

 I hope that you found this post useful.  Until next time…

Bookmark It

Hide Sites